On a small-unit level, yes, for most of the war the German soldiery greatly out-classed the Soviets. After all, the Soviets had the best tank in the world at the start of the war- which really took the Germans by surprise- yet the Germans with their pathetic tanks still handed them repeated defeats. (Even the French tanks far outclassed the German ones- but the French used them incorrectly, and the Blitzkrieg worked.)
Part of this was due to Stalin's recent purges of higher military leadership.
But, two points:
1) Starting from very late 1944 onward, the Soviet small-units achieved parity with and then probably slightly exceeded their German counterparts. Primarily this was because the Germans were reduced to throwing old men, cripples, and boys into the fight in Volksturm units. Also,
2) Despite the loss of their higher officers to the purges the Soviets, as I mentioned, developed operational-level warfare to an art and a science. Stalin created great Darwinian pressure on his higher commanders, and from about mid-1943 (Kursk) onward they accomplished truly amazing military feats on the strategic level. Yes, for the first couple of years the Soviets traded their sons for time, but later they just simply started kicking butt- and no one gives them credit for it. True, they still relied upon mass, but if you've got that hammer, well, use it. German intelligence sucked, yet the Soviets always had GREAT info on the Germans. They concentrated forces masterfully, and started regularly crushing the Germans. It doesn't matter if your soldiers fight twice as well as the Soviets when the Soviets have concentrated in a 10:1 advantage against you! Operationally and strategically the Soviets ran rings around the Germans starting at about the spring thaw 1943. Also, the Germans put too much confidence in their Eastern Front wonder-weapons, the Tiger and the Panther. Unfortunately for them they simply never could make enough of them, and very much misunderstood the true utility of the Tiger.
And, yes, the Germans were severely hurt by the logistical challenges from the distances involved. But I think people nonetheless tend to over-state that. If that was really the most prominent issue, then why did their 1942 and 1943 offensives fail? They had stockpiled quite enough supplies very far forward, and had changed the railroad gauge to suit them by then. (The partisan campaign's effectiveness gets overstated quite a bit, too. Mostly by the Russians, who find it very romantic. Still, that entire problem was the German's own fault. Many Belorussians and Ukrainians greeted them as liberators, then changed their tune quickly after the Germans started marching them into the woods and shooting them.)
People wonder why the Russians are paranoid. Well, nearly get wiped out by invading armies enough times and it will color your world-view...
From the very first moments of Pearl Harbor until VE-Day the Pacific theater was secondary to Europe, by official policy. The Japanese were insane (or rather, unbelievably desperate) to attack the US. Have you SEEN their production figures?!?! They dominated for the first six months of the war only because they were the only force in the region that was in any sort of state of readiness combined with the great distances involved, and it was all downhill after that. Not to mention that they were massively overcommited in China at the time. (Taken with a grain of salt, the Chinese were the Japanese's Soviets.) Yamamoto tried to warn his government about this. The Japanese only lasted as long as they did because we (allies) were barely trying. Obviously, that is an oversimplification, but essentially true.
I stand by my statement that the Soviets "won" WW2. Not that there weren't some close calls- they could have lost that war in several places- but their contribution by far outweighs the contribution of all the other allies combined... any way you calculate it.